Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Odds 'N Ends

1. Anti-Gays Undermining Our Form of Government (Again)

From the Chicago Tribune, the Iowa Family Policy Center has been circulating a petition to urge Iowa county recorders to defy the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling which struck down the ban on same-sex marriage. Iowa lawmaker Merlin Bartz, who took an oath of office to uphold the laws of the state Iowa and of the US, also had a complaint filed against him for urging recorders not to comply with the Court's ruling.

Isn't it fun how so many conservatives are all about democracy, patriotism, and our form of government until these things result in outcomes they do not like? Of course, they usually blame their loss on some sort of Unfair Tyranny, which in reality is nothing more the democratic process in action. Once people stop confusing tyranny with losing I think political rhetoric would be a lot more interesting to read. As it stands now, every time anti-gays lose, you can pretty much predict their arguments before they're even spewed forth.

2. Animal Adoption

Reporting live from the Animal Family Research Council, today I hope to shed some light on the depravity of inter-animal adoption. Jasmine, an abandoned unmarried greyhound canine, has nonetheless seen fit to "mother" abandoned animals of the following species: fox, badgers, chicks, guinea pigs, and rabbits.

To add insult to injury, she has chosen to undertake her parenting role without a male parent.

As self-appointed president of the AFRC, I am here to say that all animals deserve a mother and a father, as well as a parent of the same species. Animals shelters and hospitals should have a primary preference for placing animal babies with a married mother and father as opposed to with renegade canines who selfishly create non-intact single-parent "families" of their own.


3. Because Every Other Course is a Men's Studies Course

Previously, I wrote about Roy Den Hollander's suit against Columbia University for offering a Women's Studies program but not a Men's Studies one. Not surprisingly, a magistrate judge has recommended dismissing the suit. If it is dismissed, Hollander has stated that he will waste more time and money appeal.

To refresh your memory, Hollander had argued that Columbia offered no courses from the male perspective. Columbia countered this statement with an argument from the reality-based world:

"Indeed, even the claim that Columbia offers no courses with 'male sensitive views'–let alone that it ‘banishes’ the male perspective–is simply rhetoric," the memorandum said. "Plaintiffs do not explain how a philosophy course on Kant and Nietzsche; an art history course on the male nude in western art; a history course on the American presidency since 1945; a classics course on Plato; an American Studies course on the Supreme Court; a music course on Beethoven; or an English course on Milton (or Shakespeare, or Beckett and Nabokov, or Pinter, or O’Neill, or Williams and Miller) fails to be male sensitive."

In other words, practically every other course outside of the Women's Studies department is offered from the male perspective. Amusingly, Columbia's response to Hollander's complaint stated that it was incoherent and read like a "parody." A sampling of Hollander's thoughts:

"'Women’s studies [programs] aid and abet murder,' he said. 'Where do you think all those lunatic female syndromes come from for excusing murdering incipient human beings, boiling babies, drowning their children, and killing their boyfriends or husbands?'"

Dood. Sorry for your crappy divorce. But please. Get. Help.

No comments: